His book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, apparently only contains 100 professors. While some might argue that this is an indicator of his sloppiness, I prefer to think of it as his offering of hope: those of us aren’t in the book can now dream that we were supposed to be in there, and it was just an oversight that we were left out.
Repeat after me: I am the 101st Professor!
One of the historians listed in the book said that he was sad to learn that he wasn’t ranked higher than he was. I think I would wear it as a badge of honor if that nutcase thought I was dangerous.
It’s even more comical when you notice this tidbit from the linked item: “Horowitz said that’s because he included at least two and possibly three professors in his introduction.”
Crap. Now I’m going to have to buy the book in case they decide to issue a revised edition with a proper subtitle, that way the value of my book will go through the roof, like a badly printed stamp.
I am not at all surprised after the frontpagemag poll debacle. Horowitz is an embarrassment.
Can we mail Little Davey nominations for inclusions in the second edition? ‘Cause I promise I would vote for you, PZ!
Hopefully the 2nd edition will be The Professors: The 205 Most Dangerous Academics in America, since 205 would match the number of people on McCarthy’s list of commies in the State Department.
I wonder if any of the folks who DID make the list mention it in their CV’s?
There are exactly 57 card-carrying members of the communist party in the department of Defense!
Repeat after me: I am the 101st Professor!
We are all the 101st Professor!
Isn’t Horowitz’s grade school math teacher really the missing Most Dangerous Academicâ¢?
The funniest part of Horowitz’s response is when he says there are “at least two and possibly three” others named in the introduction. We sure don’t need an explanation about the title then, do we?
Maybe he should have called it “At Least 100 or Possibly 101 of the Most Dangerous Academics in America – With At Least 2 And Possibly 3 More Listed in the Introduction.”
On bookshelves now for at least 19 and possibly 20 dollars.
The New York Times gives it at least 1 and possibly 2 stars.
P Z Myers wrote:
…and the 101st professor is Dr Who?
Maybe he meant to add me, but then realized that I don’t have tenure. I am but a lowly grad student.
…so hungry.
PZ, you should be on the list because you are more dangerous than I am, and I am on the list.
Right now, some of the 100 are talking about having a conference to talk about progressive scholarship in a conservative age. With a little luck, we’ll do something on the east coast and something on the west. (You midwesterners will have to travel to one of the blue coasts to join in.)
100, 101 — what’s the difference when you are a professional hysteric?
This is nothing new for Horowitz. In an interview with National Review he said the following:
With his lack of command over the quantitative arts, I’d think he’d rather go after math professors. Actually, I’m beginning to think that anyone involved with the mathematical miseducation of Horowitz should be blacklisted.
Time listed at least 107 people in their list of 100 “People Who Shape Our World.” Your response, and I quote:
“.”
Man, of all the things to complain about. Substance? It’s obviously over-rated. Nitpicking insignificant little things is far more important. Hey, I bet there are a few typos in the book, too. Go search ’em out and report back to PZ, kids!
I see your unhealthy obsession with PZ Myers is unchanged, Jason. Better get that looked at.
Hey, you never answered my question, Jason! Does God let liberals into heaven, or do I have to be a Republican?
Horowitz is especially irrelevent for me. I always took that whole argument about “seeing all the bad things that privileged people were doing in the 60s against the war” to be so, well, stupid.
The right has made its money on blowing the delinquent few into this big evil blow-up doll, which they then use to exploit peoples’ emotions.
DHo is wrong, and always will be so, because he’s arguing from false premises. It’s the assumption of guilt before innocence syndrome that defines modern conservative psychology. Deep down, they do not trust the very individuals they claim to want to raise up.
I see your unhealthy obsession with PZ Myers is unchanged, Jason.
And I see the unhealthy obsession with conservatives here is unchanged, too. Better yank that plank out before people start getting hit in the head when you turn around.
But seriously, I’m not the least bit obsessed with PZ. I’m concerned for him. If he’s going to play the “intellectual superior,” then he really needs to work on actually acting like it. Nitpicking some trivial thing doesn’t seem very intellectually superior. It’s more like a schoolyard taunt – weak, petty, substanceless and immature.
Jason, because you’re socially retarded, I feel obligated to explain to you that we do not take Horowitz seriously. This thread is what we in the world of correctly balanced brain chemicals call “humor”.
However, if you want to find some substantial refutations of Horowitz, I’ll point you heyah:
http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/blogcategory/horowitz_fact_checker/horowitz_fact_checker/
But seriously, I’m not the least bit obsessed with PZ. I’m concerned for him.
No you’re not. And when you say that, you’re lying. Aren’t you Christian types supposed to avoid lying?
Patrick Taylor: No, his ethics (or perhaps government/political science) teacher is, since obviously whoever it is didn’t do their job …
Jason’s motivations may be dubious, but not all of his conclusions are.
There does seem to be a pendulumn swing between intelligent, rational analysis and pure emotional wingnuttery here — and the wingnuttery is not helpful in recognizing what is wrong with our society, identifying correct arguments about what’s going on and what should be done, and acting to bring about a better state of affairs.
I suspect the human instinct for creating in- and out-groups is far, far stronger than any impulses towards consistent rationality.
I thought perhaps he was including himself in the count.